BMA considers vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley

Doctors are frustrated that they are being ignored. “Top-down reorganisation” is exactly what this l

The British Medical Association (BMA) – the professional body representing doctors – is to debate a vote of no confidence in the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, amid mounting anger about his plans to restructure the NHS.

An emergency general meeting has been called for next week. Several motions highly critical of the Health Secretary will be discussed.

The BMA's biggest branch, its London regional council, has submitted a motion seeking a vote of no confidence. Another, from the Buckinghamshire branch, calls for the same, on the basis that Lansley has reneged on a pre-election promise to end "top-down reorganisation of the NHS" and has pursued reform despite no evidence that either patient care or NHS finances will be improved.

Birmingham doctors make the same point, in markedly angry language, saying that one "would not buy a used car off someone who had trumpeted no 'top-down' reorganisation of the NHS prior to being elected and then proceeds to introduce a massive and clearly long-planned reorganisation of the NHS after being elected".

Much of this frustration arises from doctors feeling that their concerns are being ignored by the Health Secretary. In January the BMA chairman, Dr Hamish Meldrum, voiced concerns that Lansley had not responded directly to the organisation's detailed and constructive criticisms of the Health Bill.

Dr Kevin O'Kane, chairman of the BMA's London region, explains the move thus:

The BMA has until now attempted to have dialogue with the Health Secretary since he released his NHS reform white paper last summer. But unfortunately Andrew Lansley has totally ignored our concerns and has behaved in a high-handed fashion with the concerns of the BMA, other health unions, the medical royal colleges, patients' groups and health think tanks.

The proposed reforms have been controversial, to say the least, with David Cameron employing a new adviser to keep an eye on NHS policy. After private meetings with Lansley, the Prime Minister has decided to stand by the policy. However, it is cause for concern if the voices of the professionals who will be affected are ignored, particularly given that Cameron wrote just last month that the "big society" means "putting trust in professionals and power in the hands of the people they serve".

In practice, if a vote of no confidence were passed, it would further dilute the BMA's capacity to influence the policy. But that it is even under discussion is a sign of huge frustration within the medical profession. The government would do well to engage with these dissenting voices in order to make reform more workable, rather than shut them out altogether. "Top-down reorganisation" is exactly what this looks like.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Let's face it: supporting Spurs is basically a form of charity

Now, for my biggest donation yet . . .

I gazed in awe at the new stadium, the future home of Spurs, wondering where my treasures will go. It is going to be one of the architectural wonders of the modern world (football stadia division), yet at the same time it seems ancient, archaic, a Roman ruin, very much like an amphitheatre I once saw in Croatia. It’s at the stage in a new construction when you can see all the bones and none of the flesh, with huge tiers soaring up into the sky. You can’t tell if it’s going or coming, a past perfect ruin or a perfect future model.

It has been so annoying at White Hart Lane this past year or so, having to walk round walkways and under awnings and dodge fences and hoardings, losing all sense of direction. Millions of pounds were being poured into what appeared to be a hole in the ground. The new stadium will replace part of one end of the present one, which was built in 1898. It has been hard not to be unaware of what’s going on, continually asking ourselves, as we take our seats: did the earth move for you?

Now, at long last, you can see what will be there, when it emerges from the scaffolding in another year. Awesome, of course. And, har, har, it will hold more people than Arsenal’s new home by 1,000 (61,000, as opposed to the puny Emirates, with only 60,000). At each home game, I am thinking about the future, wondering how my treasures will fare: will they be happy there?

No, I don’t mean Harry Kane, Danny Rose and Kyle Walker – local as well as national treasures. Not many Prem teams these days can boast quite as many English persons in their ranks. I mean my treasures, stuff wot I have been collecting these past 50 years.

About ten years ago, I went to a shareholders’ meeting at White Hart Lane when the embryonic plans for the new stadium were being announced. I stood up when questions were called for and asked the chairman, Daniel Levy, about having a museum in the new stadium. I told him that Man United had made £1m the previous year from their museum. Surely Spurs should make room for one in the brave new mega-stadium – to show off our long and proud history, delight the fans and all those interested in football history and make a few bob.

He mumbled something – fluent enough, as he did go to Cambridge – but gave nothing away, like the PM caught at Prime Minister’s Questions with an unexpected question.

But now it is going to happen. The people who are designing the museum are coming from Manchester to look at my treasures. They asked for a list but I said, “No chance.” I must have 2,000 items of Spurs memorabilia. I could be dead by the time I finish listing them. They’ll have to see them, in the flesh, and then they’ll be free to take away whatever they might consider worth having in the new museum.

I’m awfully kind that way, partly because I have always looked on supporting Spurs as a form of charity. You don’t expect any reward. Nor could you expect a great deal of pleasure, these past few decades, and certainly not the other day at Liverpool when they were shite. But you do want to help them, poor things.

I have been downsizing since my wife died, and since we sold our Loweswater house, and I’m now clearing out some of my treasures. I’ve donated a very rare Wordsworth book to Dove Cottage, five letters from Beatrix Potter to the Armitt Library in Ambleside, and handwritten Beatles lyrics to the British Library. If Beckham and I don’t get a knighthood in the next honours list, I will be spitting.

My Spurs stuff includes programmes going back to 1910, plus recent stuff like the Opus book, that monster publication, about the size of a black cab. Limited editions cost £8,000 a copy in 2007. I got mine free, as I did the introduction and loaned them photographs. I will be glad to get rid of it. It’s blocking the light in my room.

Perhaps, depending on what they want, and they might take nothing, I will ask for a small pourboire in return. Two free tickets in the new stadium. For life. Or longer . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times